• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"US violated Geneva Conventions" - Gen Petraeus

TheNextEra said:
And who decides these people don't apply to the geneva convention?
Click to expand...

The Geneva Conventions have already answered that question:

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces.

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

-that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
-that of carrying arms openly;
-that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [1]

Because there are people of intelligence that say they should apply and there are people of intelligence that say the shouldn't apply.

Let the lawyers fight it out, which is exactly what might happen.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about what should be, I'm talking about what is currently factual. It is a fact that the people in question do not garner recognition from the GC.

[1] - [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention]Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Lerxst said:
I don't know that we didn't violate the Geneva Convention. We have the CENTCOM ****ing commander saying we violated the Geneva Convention, John McCain said we violated the Geneva Convention, we have federal judges saying we violated the Geneva Convention, the Supreme Court said we violated the Geneva Convention, and we have dozens of governments around the world saying we violated the Geneva Convention.

I'm going to go ahead and take Petraeus' word that we violated the Geneva Convention. I'll let you speculate as to what he is specifically talking about.
Click to expand...

You know, I understand all that, but I haven't seen anybody articulate what specific article we did violate. I'd like to know.
 
Ethereal said:
The Geneva Conventions have already answered that question:

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces.

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

-that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
-that of carrying arms openly;
-that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [1]



I'm not talking about what should be, I'm talking about what is currently factual. It is a fact that the people in question do not garner recognition from the GC.

[1] - Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

And that is according to Bush. There are others who have interpreted as different. What makes bush right and others wrong?
 
TheNextEra said:
And that is according to Bush. There are others who have interpreted as different. What makes bush right and others wrong?
Click to expand...

Bush didn't write those articles. Those aren't his opinions. Those are what the Geneva Conventions actually say.
 
WI Crippler said:
Bush didn't write those articles. Those aren't his opinions. Those are what the Geneva Conventions actually say.
Click to expand...

Yes, and there are people who feel differently about whether they fall under legal combatants or illegal combatants.

Try looking those up. Some resistant members DID carry arms openly that is how they were caught.
 
I think that there is an assumption by some on this forum that they know exactly what Petraeus was referring to when he made his statements. The article says Petraeus himself did not specify.

Rather than continue to escalate this to an unfriendly level of argument, I'll offer this. I'd like to know exactly what Petraeus was referring to. My personal opinion on this is that based upon so much other available information, Petraeus is simply confirming what many others have already said and ruled in court.

But I'd like him to be more specific.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, and there are people who feel differently about whether they fall under legal combatants or illegal combatants.

Try looking those up.
Click to expand...

So they feel differently. Can they prove that the articles say something other than what they actually say? Combatants must meet ALL 4 of those requirements. How hard is that to interpret?
 
WI Crippler said:
Bush didn't write those articles. Those aren't his opinions. Those are what the Geneva Conventions actually say.
Click to expand...

I think the issue here however is twofold:
  • The manner in which these prisoners were classified. There are terrible discrepancies there.
  • Why did our government ever make the argument for denying them protections under the Geneva Convention in the first place?

The only real reason the Bush administration made the arguments was to facilitate military tribunals and torture.
 
Inferno said:
I seem to think when you are wrong you are wrong. If the troops stopped following wrong orders there would not be a problem.
Click to expand...

"Wrong" is a subjective term.
 
Lerxst said:
I think the issue here however is twofold:
  • The manner in which these prisoners were classified. There are terrible discrepancies there.
  • Why did our government ever make the argument for denying them protections under the Geneva Convention in the first place?

The only real reason the Bush administration made the arguments was to facilitate military tribunals and torture.
Click to expand...

I think the real issue is one fold, and that is that there is no clear definitive law regarding enemy combatants that don't meet all 4 of the requirements for POW status.
 
WI Crippler said:
I think the real issue is one fold, and that is that there is no clear definitive law regarding enemy combatants that don't meet all 4 of the requirements for POW status.
Click to expand...

Well that's simply where we differ then. It's much bigger than that. Legal definitions aside, we should never have even been in this situation where we are arguing the matter. Regardless of status, we should not have tortured our captives. Period.
 
It has been stated and restated clearly by others and it's a fact the 3 listed as being waterboarded were not uniformed soldiers and therefore have no protection under the Geneva Conventions what so ever.
The Obama and other liberal leftist extremists cries over this are not in any way for some kind of justice even though some will claim it to be so, and some of them might believe it because they believe everything Obama says. The real reason for this BS outrage is to further weaken America and to distract people from what is really going on when Obama says one thing then does another and is never called on it by the lap dog media. Like proposing huge taxes on every American on CO2, using fascist moves to take over and run GM when he said he won't, dictate terms to banks, and make moves to take over the insurance industry and more.
Watch what he does not what he says. And for God sake act like Americans even though to be a Patriot and support the Constitution now makes you a potential terrorist in the eyes for the sorry excuse for an American Janet (I hate the military) Napolitano and the rest of the Obama crowd.
 
Lerxst said:
I don't know that we didn't violate the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

Nor do you know if we did violate them.

We have the CENTCOM ****ing commander saying we violated the Geneva Convention, John McCain said we violated the Geneva Convention, we have federal judges saying we violated the Geneva Convention, the Supreme Court said we violated the Geneva Convention, and we have dozens of governments around the world saying we violated the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

So what!? I could reference a slew of equally important people who disagree with them. Are we going to go tit-for-tat with authority figures or are we going to discuss the issue ourselves?

I'm going to go ahead and take Petraeus' word that we violated the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll just take Rumsfeld's word that we didn't. Isn't differing to authority figures a great way to debate?

I'll let you speculate as to what he is specifically talking about.
Click to expand...

I don't engage in speculation, nor do I need to, as the article under discussion has all the requisite information needed in order to make an informed conclusion:

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

Petraeus made the comment in the context of being asked about the Bush administration’s so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

So, in regards to EIT, Petraeus maintains that we violated the GC, but if one actually references the GC we can see as plain as day that the GC does not apply to anyone who falls under either of the following criteria:

-Non-uniformed combatants.
-Combatants that fail to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Since the people in question brazenly and undoubtedly violated BOTH of these GC criteria, we can then conclude that the GC does not apply to them, which brings me back to my original question:

How can one violate the Geneva Conventions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?
 
Last edited:
Inferno said:
So this makes it right. That entire administration should be in jail.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be black and white? You skip quite a bit of landscape in the grey.
 
There have been obvious violations of the geneva conventions, but the question is whether these were policies constructed to do so as opposed to unique situtions/scenarios related to individuals and poor judgments.

In other news, the sun is still at the center of our solar system.
 
Ethereal said:
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
Click to expand...

Well they sort of have a distinctive sign.

images
 
Lerxst said:
Well that's simply where we differ then. It's much bigger than that. Legal definitions aside, we should never have even been in this situation where we are arguing the matter. Regardless of status, we should not have tortured our captives. Period.
Click to expand...

Well we are discussing legal definitions here.

What you are offering up in this post, is opinion. I can respect that, but opinions are not laws.
 
vendur said:
There have been obvious violations of the geneva conventions...
Click to expand...

If they're so obvious, then you'll have no trouble telling us what the offense was and what part of the GC said offense violates.
 
Are there warcrime laws that do not apply to soldiers on the battlefield?
 
Ethereal said:
Nor do you know if we did violate them.



So what!? I could reference a slew of equally important people who disagree with them. Are we going to go tit-for-tat with authority figures or are we going to discuss the issue ourselves?



Okay. I'll just take Rumsfeld's word that we didn't. Isn't differing to authority figures a great way to debate?
Click to expand...
Weight of the testimony (or statements as it were). You go ahead and take Rumsfeld's word for it.

I don't engage in speculation, nor do I need to, as the article under discussion has all the requisite information needed in order to make an informed conclusion:

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

Petraeus made the comment in the context of being asked about the Bush administration’s so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Click to expand...
You obviously do because mysteriously absent from that article is any clarification as to which prisoners he was referring to. You are speculating that we only used EIT's on those prisoners not covered by the Geneva Convention.
So, in regards to EIT, Petraeus maintains that we violated the GC, but if one actually references the GC we can see as plain as day that the GC does not apply to anyone who falls under either of the following criteria:

-Non-uniformed combatants.
-Combatants that fail to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Since the people in question brazenly and undoubtedly violated BOTH of these GC criteria, we can then conclude that the GC does not apply to them, which brings me back to my original question:

How can one violate the Geneva Conventions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?
Click to expand...
Do you know how many people we have used EIT's on? How many people we have tortured? What their actual status was? In another thread I posted a list of autopsies and information regarding prisoners who were tortured, abused, and murdered while in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some while being interrogated by the military and the CIA.

Further there have been many detainees whose status has been overturned, they were released with no charges, and their lawyers are making cases that they were tortured. You have absolutely no way of knowing who was tortured and who wasn't, who was operating as a non-uniformed combatant and who wasn't, none of that. None of us do. I choose to look at all the information and form a reasonable opinion.

Like I said, I'll take the word of the man who ran the show and most certainly is much more aware of the facts of the matter than any of us. Let's not minimize the impact of what this man says based upon your speculation or even mine.

General Petraeus said we violated the Geneva Convention.
 
Last edited:
goldendog said:
Are there warcrime laws that do not apply to soldiers on the battlefield?
Click to expand...

Okay, you have asked a question, I will demonstrate how to answer it.

No, I do not believe so. War crimes are necessarily defined by the GC and a solider (which I would assume is any member of a GC recognized force) is bound by those laws. However, it must be noted that not all acts are conceived of within the GC, and if a soldier were to have engaged such an act, it would stand to reason that he or she was not in violation of the GC, despite the fact that said act could be considered immoral.

See how that works? You asked a question and I provided you with a reasoned and relevant answer. Now you try it:

How can one violate the Geneva Conventions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?
 
Ethereal said:
Okay, you have asked a question, I will demonstrate how to answer it.

No, I do not believe so. War crimes are necessarily defined by the GC and a solider (which I would assume is any member of a GC recognized force) is bound by those laws. However, it must be noted that not all acts are conceived of within the GC, and if a soldier were to have engaged such an act, it would stand to reason that he or she was not in violation of the GC, despite the fact that said act could be considered immoral.

See how that works? You asked a question and I provided you with a reasoned and relevant answer. Now you try it:

How can one violate the Geneva Conventions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?
Click to expand...

We can't and we did not.

I am against torture on the grounds we should never have stooped to the level of the enemy. This however has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions.

I think it is nothing but partisan bullc***p. People are so desperate to call the last administration "war criminals" they are looking for excuses to do it. This has literally nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions.

Not all of the people are doing it because they are partisan. Some just don't know the convention well enough and are guessing based on what others are saying.

Shame on you!
 
Ethereal said:
How can one violate the Geneva Conventions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?
Click to expand...

Bush did a good job confusing this issue. Note the bolded area below. There is much confusion on if these terrorists fall into the GC's categories so, Article 5 should have been followed as a default. Bush wanted to deprive these prisoners of all rights and due process and went about trying to build that case. He has not confused the experienced military, as Gen. Petraeus has just proved. I assume Petreaus had Obama's permission to speak publicly on this issue.

Here are the areas of the Geneva Convention BushCo violated:
Article 4 of the Geneva Convention defines the categories of persons who may be considered as "prisoners of war." According to Article 5, "should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." No competent tribunal has adjudicated this matter.

Among the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention regarding humane treatment of prisoners of war, which the U.S. is refusing to apply, are:

- Article 13: Humane treatment required; No reprisals allowed

- Article 14: Respect for persons and honour; No gender discrimination

- Article 16: No discrimination based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions

- Article 17: No physical or mental torture; No coercion to obtain information; Prisoners who decline to provide information may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment

- Article 18: Clothing, articles of personal use, to remain with prisoners

- Article 20: Evacuation or transfer to be under same conditions as afforded Detaining Power

- Article 21: Internment in camp allowed; Close confinement prohibited

- Article 22: Internment in penitentiaries prohibited; Every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness required

- Article 25: Condition of quarters must be as favorable for POWs as for the forces of the Detaining Power; Accommodations for habits and customs of POWs required; Protection from dampness, adequate heat and lighting required

- Article 26: Food must be in sufficient quantity, quality and variety to maintain good health and weight

- Article 27: Adequate clothing, underwear and footwear required

- Article 28: Canteens must be installed; Fairly priced food, soap, tobacco and ordinary items must be stocked

- Articles 29 - 32: Proper hygiene and medical attention, including monthly health inspections, required

- Articles 34 - 37: Prisoners must be afforded complete latitude in the exercise of religion, including attendance at services, on condition they comply with disciplinary routine

- Article 38: Provisions for physical, intellectual and recreational activities

- Article 70: Prisoners must be allowed to write to family, others
Click to expand...
 
Lerxst said:
Weight of the testimony (or statements as it were). You go ahead and take Rumsfeld's word for it.
Click to expand...

I was being facetious. My point is that I do not take an authority figure's word for something when I can just easily form my own opinion.

You obviously do because mysteriously absent from that article is any clarification as to which prisoners he was referring to.

You are speculating that we only used EIT's on those prisoners not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Do you know how many people we have used EIT's on? How many people we have tortured? What their actual status was? In another thread I posted a list of autopsies and information regarding prisoners who were tortured, abused, and murdered while in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some while being interrogated by the military and the CIA.

Further there have been many detainees whose status has been overturned, they were released with no charges, and their lawyers are making cases that they were tortured. You have absolutely no way of knowing who was tortured and who wasn't, who was operating as a non-uniformed combatant and who wasn't, none of that. None of us do. I choose to look at all the information and form a reasonable opinion.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly what you are saying and perhaps you may be right, but until Petraeus clarifies his position all of this cheerleading is premature.

Like I said, I'll take the word of the man who ran the show and most certainly is much more aware of the facts of the matter than any of us. Let's not minimize the impact of what this man says based upon your speculation or even mine.

General Petraeus said we violated the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

I did not speculate on or justify ANYTHING. I asked a simple question and got attacked by several posters. If you would have just answered the damn thing the first time I asked it, we could have foregone all this nonsense and agreed that nobody knows either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom